Aesthetics of Exhibition

7/27/2019 Aesthetics of Exhibition

1/9

The Aesthetics of Exhibition: A Discussion of Recent American Computer Art ShowsAuthor(s): Patric D. PrinceSource: Leonardo. Supplemental Issue, Vol. 1, Electronic Art (1988), pp. 81-88Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1557915

Accessed: 24/11/2010 07:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLeonardo. Supplemental

Issue.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1557915?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1557915?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress


2/9

T h e Aesthetics o f Exhibition:A Discussion o f R e c e n t AmericanComputer A r t S h o w s

Patric D. Prince

T he nature and purpose of art dictate how andwhere it is seen. The historyof Western culture has witnesseda development that has taken art from the realm of the spir-itual to the realm of the secular. The secularization of arthas changed our understanding of art. This progression ofart also has effected changes in the nature of art. The didac-tic replication of religious subjects was well understood bythe medieval Christian faithful who contemplated the im-ages for their personal salvation. The traditional Christiansubjects that artistsused, e.g. a Pieta, required only that theviewer followed the teachings of the Church. In the inter-vening centuries, as art has become more and more secular,it has become esoteric.The viewing public has needed to become educated inart theory to underst-nd the meaning and purpose of art.Modernists' concepts of art have led to a refining process inthe understanding and appreciation of the arts. It takes aninformed viewer to comprehend the abstract formal ele-ments of twentieth-century art. Tom Wolfe in his book ThePainted Wordmplies that Modern contemporary art has be-come so esoteric and literarythat only a few cognoscenti un-derstand it. Future art objects maybe eliminated altogether,with only the conceptual elements of art existing [1]. The

Fig. 1. Giovanni PaoloPanini,TheGallery Car-dinalValentiGonzaga,il oncanvas, 78 x 105.5 in, 1749.(WadsworthAtheneum,Hartford. The Ella GallupSumner and MaryCatlinSumner Collection) Panini'spainting demonstrates theearly Salon exhibition style.This method of stackingpaintings one above anotheron the wall was popular untilearly in the twentieth cen-tury. This painting is of animaginarycollection ofartworks from the eighteenthcentury.

?1988 SASTPergamonress ic.PrintednGreatritain.0024094X/883.00+0.00

nature of Conceptual art and thecurrent fashion for ephemeralart objects does affect the pub-lic's understanding of 'modern'art.Although much contempo-rary art has an esoteric qualitythat some viewers may find ob-scure and meaningless, there areaspects of computer art that areextremely appealing to a largesegment of the population [2].Interactivityas an aspect of com-puter-aided artmaking, coupledwith realistic imaging, mathe-matical visualization and the

growing availability of imple-mentation, make computer artinteresting as an expressive ve-hicle.

ABSTRACT

Artistsareusingechnologicaladvancesn heirrtmakingprocessesnd re oncernedabouthedifficultyfgettingheirworkxhibited.he uthoriscus-ses theaestheticsf exhibitionndthenaturefcomputer-aidedrtasseen nrecentmportantxhibi-tions, s well s theproblemsassociated ithmountingheseexhibitions.brief istoryfcom-puter-aidedrt xhibitionsspre-sented,ncludingheearliestxhibi-tions,hedevelopmentsfthe1970sand ecentmajor useumexhibitions.he uthoromparesconceptsndraditionsnexhibitiondesigno those hatwill e neededin he uture,ndinallyiscusseswhy ertainrtorms re xhibited.

Patric D. Prince, Fine Arts Administration, 901 Sixth Street, S.W., Number 914,Washington, DC 20024, U.S.A.Received 3 May 1988.

LEONARDO,ElectronicArtSupplementalssue,pp. 81-88, 1988 81

I


3/9

Fig.2. Two nstallationsrom theNationalGallery f Art nWashington,DC. Austeredesigns for displaying artworks evolved as contemporary museum architecture affectedinterior spaces and as Modernism became a prominent style. (Courtesy National Galleryof Art)The evolution of art includes an in-terest in the processes involved withcreativity as well as the aesthetic ex-perience.

A HISTORICALAPPROACH TO THEDISPLAY OF NEW ARTThe method of displayof technical artis connected to the history of thedevelopment of museums and, in par-ticular, to the development of the'modern' museum. The Museum ofModer Art in New York was the firstmuseum created for the display ofcontemporary artworks. After itsfounding in 1929, the display tech-niques of individual artworks becameincreasingly moder as well. "Begin-ning with the Museum of Moder Art,the first art gallery of world impor-

tance to be designed in a wholly con-temporary style, American museumshave immeasurably encouraged theacceptance of architecture relying onnew technology and exploiting thepotential of new materials" [3]. Theearlier technique of stacking artworkswas eliminated and single works of artwere displayed in a clear, neutral set-ting (Fig. 1). A.W. Melton wrote in1935:

Whereas the museum can increasethe frequencywithwhichvisitors eeaspecificobjectby ncreasingts sola-tion,byplacing t in a favorable osi-tionwithin hegallery, ndbyplacingit in a galleryvisitedearly n the mu-seumvisit, t cannot ncrease he con-centrationof intensityof the visitors'interestnitbysuchmanipulation.norder o do the latter t mustresort othe use of printedlabels which ex-plainor interpret he artobject [4].In the moder museum an artworkis no longer viewed in its context as in

the medieval Christian church but isseen as an isolated work. The mainthrust of twentieth-century art exhibi-tion design has been towards creatingisolated, well-lighted spaces (Fig. 2).

A BRIEF HISTORY OFCOMPUTER ARTSHOWSIn 1965 several computer art exhibi-tions were mounted. The firstwas heldin the Gallery Wendelin Niedlich atthe University of Stuttgart in January1965 and featured the works of GeorgNees. In April 1965, A.M. Noll andBelaJulesz had a show of their work atthe Howard Wise Galleryin New York.Georg Nees and Frieder Nakemounted another show in Novemberat the Niedlich Gallery in Stuttgart.Inaddition, artworks were published inthe June issue of Computersnd Auto-mation,which held an annual art con-test from 1963 to 1979.In 1968Jasia Reichardt curated animportant art show that was held at theInstitute of Contemporary Arts fromAugust through October. A catalogwas published that illustrated many ofthe works shown.

Cybernetic Serendipity wasmountedin a galleryof 6500squarefeet, involved325 participantsandwas eenby60,000people.Theexhib-its showedhowman can usethe com-puterand newtechnology o extendhis creativity and inventiveness.These consistedof computergraph-ics,computer-composednd-playedmusic, computer-animatedfilms,computer-texts,and among othercomputer-generatedmaterial, thefirstcomputer culpture.Therewerealsocyberneticmachines uchasGor-donPask'scolloquy fmobiles', ele-vision sets converting sound intovisualpatterns.PeterZinovieffselec-tronic musicstudiowith a computerwhichimprovisedon tuneswhistledinto a microphoneby the visitors;therewererobots,drawingmachinesand numerousconstructionswhichresponded to ambient sound andlight. Six IBM machines demon-strated he use of computers,and avisualdisplay providedinformationon thehistoryof cybernetics5].Following Cybernetic erendipityheinfluential exhibition The Machine asSeenat theEnd of theMechanicalAgewasheld at the Museum of Modern Art inNew York from November 1968 to

February1969. This exhibition wassig-nificant because of its surveyof artandtechnology artifacts and because it in-cluded computer-aided works by

82 Pince, The Aesthetics of Exhibition: Recent American Computer Art Shows

r rc--=?'i'P:'"Z "? E3ij-U;TBli


4/9

Schwartz,Harmon, Noll, Fraenkel andRaskin. The catalog from the exhibi-tion has become a collector's item.Technical Art in the 1970sAfter 1970, many exhibitions of com-puter art were organized all over theindustrialized world, from Japan toBrazil. There were several notable mu-seum shows of the work of individualartists, including Harold Cohen andJeff and Colette Bangert. Vendors ofcomputing equipment sponsored artexhibitions and travelling art shows.Exhibitions were held regularlyby theComputer ArtsSociety in London andthe Association for Computing Ma-chinery (ACM) in the United States(Fig. 3.) [6].SIGGRAPH Art ShowsThe Special Interest Group forGraphics (SIGGRAPH) of the ACMhas sponsored computer art shows asan adjunct activity to the annual con-ference since 1981. These art showshave involved hundreds of computerartists and have been an importantvenue for technical art. Since 1982, anart show catalog has been printed todocument the exhibitions [7]. Theearly SIGGRAPH exhibitions of com-puter imagery combined works show-ing technical innovations with fine art-works. The 1984 exhibition wasdevoted exclusively to computer-aided design (CAD). The 1985 artshow was complex, involving installa-tions held in conjunction with severalSan Francisco museums. The 1986 artshow was an international retrospec-tive of computers in the arts surveyingthe development of its use by artistsover the last 20 years or more. Morethan 450 artworks were presented inall media. The 1987 art show was con-cerned with the 'unusual' in computerart. The SIGGRAPH art shows haveconsistently involved innovative exhi-bition design because of their use oftemporary facilities. The art selectedhas reflected SIGGRAPH's focus onnew technologies. One aspect of thisfocus has been the mounting of newart forms. Many of the installationssupported by the SIGGRAPH artshowswould have had no other venue.The earliest computer art showswere held in conventional exhibitionspaces, with temporarypanels dividingthe works into compartments. The

art that not only depends upon elec-tronic light but also is interactive(Fig. 4).Major American MuseumShowsIn 1987, there were three major mu-seum art shows featuring computer-aided art. The Bronx Museum of theArts held the SecondEmergingExpres-sion Biennial: The Artist and The Com-puterfrom 17 September 1987 to 24January 1988. The show was curated byLouis R. Cancel, the director of themuseum, and juried by Shalom Gore-witz and this author.In his introduction to the catalogLouis Cancel states,

This catalogdocumentsThe BronxMuseumof the Arts'second exhibi-tion (the firstwas n 1985)thatseeksto capturethe extent to whichcom-putersare being utilizedas creativetoolsbyvisualartists.... Allof the ar-tists selected for this exhibition arepushing the boundariesof media,goingthat extramile,andhelpingtoestablish a path where technologyandartcanconverge n the creationof new tools for human expression[8].More than 75 artists, techniciansand programmers exhibited work inthe show, which included installa-tions, musical works, video, anima-tion, sculpture and two-dimensionalartworks.The museum has severalgal-

leries, two of which were set up for theshow. The spaces were tall and ele-gant. Special areas were created tohold the works that required a low-light environment (Fig. 5).Computersand Art opened at theEverson Museum of Art in Syracuse,New York, n September 1987 and is totravel to several galleries, includingthe IBM Gallery in New York in April1988. Cynthia Goodman curated thissurvey.The show is ambitious and in-cludes works by 150 artists,which aredocumented in Goodman's book Dig-ital Visions,Computersnd Art [9]. Theworks were selected for their suitabil-ity for inclusion in a museum show.Goodman's research led her to manywell-known artists from New York whodabbled with technology as well as ar-tists admired bytheir peers in the com-puter world. The interactive selectionsin the Everson show were wonderfuland innovative. Manyworks of histori-cal interest were shown, including anupdated version of Proxima Centauri(1969) by Lillian Schwartz, Per Bjornand Arno Penzias and Computer culp-tureby Georg Nees.The museum devoted most of itsgallery space to the show. It was dis-played in several adjoining galleries,in a multilevel plan. The architectureof the Everson had its impact on theviewer's appreciation of the show. It

Fig.3. Aphotograph f an exhibition ponsoredbyIBM n 1974-1975.(CourtesyBM)The Art and Skill of People Using Computers exhibition featured artworksby severalcomputer artists includvingJeffand Colette Bangert. This exhibition toured several sitesin New York and NewJersey. Many early computer art shows were seen in environmentssimilar to this space.

original organizers of the SIGGRAPHshows were computer artists who weredetermined to make an effort to cre-ate the best possible viewing space for

Prince, The Aesthetics of Exhibition: Recent American Computer Art Shows 83


5/9

Fig. 4. SIGGRAPH art shows. (a) 1983, Detroit, Michigan, showing the low-light effect onthe 2-D art (Photo: Copper Giloth); (b) 1986, Dallas, Texas, installation section with alargehologram Photo:P. Prince); c) 1987,Anaheim,California,howing he site andthenatureof the artselected(Photo:P. Prince).was far more interesting to snakearound and down spaces than it wouldhave been to see the work in a singlelarge space (Fig. 6).The InteractiveImage, a computergraphics and imaging technology ex-hibition, was presented by the Univer-sity of Illinois at Chicago College ofEngineering and Electronic Visuali-zation Laboratory. The exhibitionopened at Chicago's Museum ofScience and Industryand ran from 24October 1987 until 10 February 1988.It will travel to SIGGRAPH 1988 inAtlanta, Georgia, in August 1988 and

will become a permanent exhibit atthe Computer Museum in Boston,Massachusetts. The show was curatedby Thomas A. DeFanti, Dan Sandinand Maxine D. Brown of the Elec-tronic Visualization Laboratory. Thewhole show is intended to be seen andused by 'participants'. It consists of 18computer systems chosen to illustratethe "experiences and concepts of elec-tronic visualization to a museum audi-ence. Visualization is the art and sci-ence of creating images on electronicscreens" [10].

The exhibition was designed byVicki Putz. She worked on more thanone level of design. All of the indi-vidual works have a similar controlstructure; they all have the same userinterface, in terms of hardware (fivebuttons and a joy stick), and menustructures. The individual menus arevaried for the sake of interest.The Interactivemageis a hands-oncomputergraphics nd maging ech-nology exhibition that encouragesmuseum visitors to learn aboutscienceand technologythroughin-teractionwith computers ... Thepublic sencouragedo createanima-tions, manipulatefour-dimensionalspaces,discover he artof mathemat-ics and explore astrophysicalphe-nomena without earof makingmis-takes, breakingthe equipment, orgetting ost in the software 11].

This show is art masquerading asscience. It was obviously necessary tolean towards an 'educational orienta-tion' to get support for the project. Forexample, DeFanti says, "The Interac-tive Image is Art and Science and ...all the workswere programmed by artstudents and faculty".The systems de-velopment wasfacilitated bycomputerscience students. He also states that"theproper use of aesthetics gets moreout of the science". The displayswereof major concern to the curators andto the artists. Sandin says, "It didn'tlook like a computer art show, itlooked like something else. It lookednew, like Broadcast T.V."(Fig. 7) [12].Gallery ShowsA recent example of a small gallery'scomputer art show was held at theDundalk Gallery, Dundalk Commu-nity College, Baltimore, Maryland. Itwas curated by Harold McWhinnie,and it took place in March 1988. Theshow consisted of computer-aidedworks by 24 artists.The Dundalk Gal-lery is small, about 600 square feet,and located in an active communitycollege. Janet Anderson, the directorof the gallery, says that "the computerart reflects the interests of the college,which has three computer laborato-ries on campus".She did not considerthis show to be an avant-gardeexhibi-tion, but said that "it was an ordinaryshow. College art galleries should in-clude the introduction of new artforms" [13]. McWhinnie states,

Exhibitions uch as thiswillexplorethe worldof technologyand the arts,whichas the lastyearsof the20thcen-turyare nowuponus,willbecomeaneven moreimportantarena or crea-

84 Prince,The Aesthetics of Exhibition: Recent American Computer Art Shows


6/9

tiveandartistic ctivities....The showis not necessarily showof computerart.Not all the works re madebythecomputer, n factmanyof the worksappear o use standard rtisticmedi-ums.Theemphasissupon the use ofcomputer technologyat some stagein the creative evolution of the in-dividual rtist'swork[14].The Dundalk Galleryhas an irregu-lar, pentagonal floor plan: a singlelong wall, three short walls and a longglass window. Panels were hung fromthe ceiling to provide additional wallspace for two-dimensional works. Thecomputers for the interactive display,which were loaned to the gallery fromlaboratories on campus, were set upon tables along one of the short walls.A VCR and monitor were placed on atrolley and there were pedestals forthree-dimensional objects. It was asimple design intended to involve theviewer with first-hand interactive ex-

perience and close-up contact with art-works (Fig. 8).

THE CHALLENGESINVOLVED IN THEMOUNTING OFCOMPUTER ARTIt has been very difficult for artists toget their computer art accepted by cu-rators and juries. Museum and gallerystaffs do not have technical back-grounds and cannot determine whatthe works will look like from the slidessubmitted for consideration. Curatorsneed to have an understanding of thenature of the art form. For example,Cibachrome prints are notjust photo-graphic reproductions; Cibachromesinvolve a combination of photo-graphic processes and dyes and are re-garded as originals.

Another problem is the question ofwhat is the original in many works ofcomputer art.An aspect of this type ofwork is the challenge associated withart that is not concrete. There is no ar-tifact in digital art. The images existonly in the computer's memory andare called up to be viewed on a moni-tor; they are pure visual information.Curators and directors have a genuineconcern about hanging the 'original'work of art. It is that which makes theart unique. It may be an outmodedconcept, but it still exists.Another concern of the contempo-rarycurator is the scale of much con-ventionally produced computer-aidedart. Most of the two-dimensional artis-tic production seen is diminutive inscale as compared to contemporarywork seen in other media. Plotterdrawingsare usuallylimited bythe sizeof the plotting surface.Recent technological advances al-low for larger-scale production ofworks, but these facilities are not yetwidely available. Robert Mallary re-lates an experience he had during aninterview with the director of a NewYorkgallery. Mallarywas showing himhis vector plots, and they were beingwarmly received, until the directorasked Mallary,"Whatdo you have thatis big?" Only works of a certain scalewere ever hung in the gallery. Mallaryrefers to this incident as "the Castellifactor" [15]. Harold Cohen and MarkWilson create large-scale two-dimen-sional computer art by taking advan-tage of custom softwarein the produc-tion of their worksinvolving automaticdrawing.For those artists who create com-plex large-scale works, especially mul-tidimensional artworks, there are al-ways other concerns related tomounting an exhibition. Large-scale

Fig. 5. Bronx Museum of the Arts 1987 show, site and works, illustrating the nature andquality of the light in a museum setting. The walled-in space to the right contains a multi-dimensional sound installation. (Photo: P. Prince)

works are costly to fabricate, to moveand to install, and they occupy vastamounts of space. The electronicequipment that controls many ofthese works frequently gets damagedin transit.

CONTEMPORARY ARTSPACES: STATIC VS.DYNAMICThe bright light that is required for anexhibition of conventional art formscontrasts with the low light that is re-quired by much technical art. Modernart spaces have developed into whitetemples of light. 'The art museum ofthe early 20th century is probably bestsymbolized by the placement of thePhiladelphia Museum of Art as aGreek temple placed high on the hillabove the city"[16]. How does the de-signer create totallydarkened space ina 'white temple'? How does the gallerymanage the large numbers of viewersin total darkness and still comply withfire regulations? In conventional gal-lery spaces, if a low-light environmentis required, the standard solution is tocreate a static, theater-like designwhere the people are secured, usuallyby seats, and the art moves beforethem. Milton Komisar's large-scalecomputer-controlled sculptures in-volve electronic light and need totaldarkness in order to be viewed. Heconsiders his works to be 'intimate' innature; they need a space in which theviewer can become involved and ex-plore the dimension of the work.Display and SetupRequirements of Technical ArtOnce complex technical works havebeen selected for exhibition, it is nec-essary to fabricate suitable environ-ments. For multidimensional artpieces, there exist several layersof de-sign and fabrication. There are exter-nal fabrications to be manufactured,softwareto be designed so that variousdisplays relate to each other andequipment configurations to be ar-ranged so that it all functions prop-erly. There are problems involved inthe acquisition of electronic equip-ment, although as industry standardsare defined, no doubt, electronicequipment will become as common-place asaudiovisualequipment is now.Curators may have a reluctance to or-ganize the specialized set-up requiredfor this equipment. It is one of the fac-

Prince, The Aesthetics of Exhibition: Recent American Computer Art Shows 85


7/9

Fig. 6. One of the larger spaces at the Everson Muslum displaying a variety of artworks.Several pieces were interactive. (Photo: P. Prince)

tors that increase the costs involved inthe display of computer art. Museumand gallery staffs will include profes-sionals who are capable of mountingany type of artistic production, butwho may not be sufficiently trained toinstall software and to maintain con-tinuityso that these works can be seen.This is one of the advantages that ar-tists have when their work is exhibitedin connection with technical confer-ences; systems experts are usuallyavailable to offer advice. Galleries, onthe other hand, must either relyon theartists themselves or hire consultantsto perform this essential function.The trend in museum design istowards specialized environments forart exhibitions, especially for the'block-buster'travelling shows like theTreasuresof Tutankhamunshow thattoured Europe and the United Statesin the late 1970s. Each museumtreated the event in the context of theexpected crowds and revenues. In SanFrancisco, for example, there was a"record of over 1,300,000 visitors"[17]. The differences here are thatwith much multidimensional art thecurator has no choice. In order for thework to be seen, specialized environ-ments must be constructed. Some ofthe recent exhibitions of technical arthave been seen by large numbers ofviewers,but few have warranted the ex-pense of fabricating environmentsbased solely on the attendance [18].Sound in Technical ArtSound is another aesthetic element oftechnical art that creates problems.Even though many computer-con-trolled artworks nclude a sound com-ponent, few galleries are prepared tooffer effective sound equipment. Ar-tists complain that they have to use al-

ternate and in many cases inferior set-ups for auditory experience. NicoleStenger reports that her composer col-laborator insisted that she use ear-phones in one particular project be-cause the environment was notsuitable for broadcast of the sound[19]. Gallery curators must be con-cerned about noise pollution whenworks include sound. At SIGGRAPH'86, the organizers were very carefulabout the spacing and audible levelsof sound installations; they sought adynamic atmosphere, not sound intru-sion. It is a difficult physical problemfor a gallery because if a sound-tightspace is obtained, it may not suit theflow of the exhibition. Future gallerieswill have to address this problem andfind suitable solutions, such as glassenclosures that do not block sightlines but enclose the sound. Many ex-hibits of multidimensional art sufferfrom sensory satiation because ofnoise pollution. This is probably fromthe use of inferior equipment that al-lows only a single sound dimension.There is a need for auditory dimen-sion controls in galleries.There are other complications tothe exhibition of technical art that Iwill only list here; they include special-ized power requirements, separate in-surance policies for the equipment(aside from the artworks), licenses forlaser use (which are required in somestates), fire safety considerations forlow-light spaces, and the specific ex-penses related to the technology.These additional expenses include thecost of shipping the equipment to andfrom the site, the cost of fabrication ofspecialized environments and the costof equipment maintenance. Special-ists are needed to set up the equip-ment, and constant maintenance is re-

quired in order to keep it working.There is also the time necessaryfor theeducation of museum staff, so that do-cents are able to discuss the works.

WHAT GETS VIEWEDThe majority of art pieces seen informal exhibitions of technically ad-vanced art have been conventionalaesthetically. They relate to and con-form to Modernist theories. The me-diums are also understandable: printforms (ink-jet prints, screen prints,lithographs, engravings), paintingsbased upon computer-generatedsketches, plotter drawings and sculp-ture (computer-assisted, computer-made, computer-controlled). Manyexhibitions of digital art includemicro-computer stations with interac-tive pieces, where the viewer becomesa partner in the process. Video wallsand animation screenings are in-stalled regularly in exhibitions.The unconventional forms of com-puter art seen in recent exhibitionsinclude laser light shows, computer-controlled environments (sound andvisual), holograms and on-line art. Afew exhibitions included 'frame buff-er' shows, bringing in the completecomputer system to display the worksas originally conceived. Manycontem-poraryart shows now have walls of writ-ten material explaining the art andgiving artists' statements. EsotericModernist art is not yet in the domainof public comprehension; becausemost museums are public institutionssupported by public funds, they areobligated to appeal to the public in thebroadest sense. Most museum visitorsrelate to conventional art forms, thatis, art forms that are imitative. If tech-nological art is to be available to thegeneral public, museum staffs and gal-lery directors must understand it first.That knowledge then can filter downto a mass audience as part of the on-going historical development.Softwarewas an ambitious exhibi-tion of technical art mounted at theJewish Museum in New York City. In1970, KarlKatz,the director, andJackBurnham, the curator, put together ashow using mainframe computers.There was a catalog printed to docu-ment the exhibition. However, somany problems occurred with thelogistics of the exhibition that thepieces were hardly ever viewed [20].The first really successful mainframe

86 Prince,The Aesthetics of Exhibition: Recent American Computer Art Shows


8/9

show was not seen until 1982 at theSIGGRAPHart show in Boston.The trend, however, is towards amore experiential art exhibition. The1988 SIGGRAPHart show is directedtowardsinteractivityand animation. Italso will feature many of the worksfrom the Interactive Image show fromChicago. The next Bronx Museum ofthe Arts computer art show will focuson environmental work and 'on-line'stations.The 1988 artwareexhibitionisdevoted to "large-scale installations,many of which employ highly complexstate-of-the-artequipment" [21].

ART GATL.ERIES OFTHE FUTUREArt forms of the future will involve aunity of the senses and will involve theparticipant in interactivity.Art galler-ies of the future will have to continueto expand our knowledge of what is, aswell as to put what was (art of the past)into context. The purpose of the mu-seum or the gallery is to informviewers, not to limit access to new artforms, and these repositories willmove forward with the times to over-come the physical limitations that re-late to computer art.Experiential and multidimensionalart forms have led us towards an activeparticipation in the viewing of art. Astaticrelationship between the artifactand the viewing participant is nolonger satisfactory. Since the turn ofthe century, artistshave discussed therejection of museums and galleries assites for their art. This attitude wasonce part of a revolutionary gesturepromoting the avant-gardein art. Be-cause of the difficulties in puttingtogether exhibitions of technically ad-vanced art, artistsare re-evaluating al-ternative display sites out of necessity.Advanced art such as that envisionedby the late Stan VanDerBeek, whopublicized the idea of the 'Culture In-tercom' that places the productionand distribution in different conti-nents that would be linked via satellite[22], and works by Tom Klinkowsteinlinking artistsvia telecommunicationswould be almost impossible to'mount' in a static gallery under anycircumstances. These artists are exam-ples of those who have sought alterna-tive methods of communicating their

ment toward multi-sensuous exper-ience.David Carrier, in a Leonardo rticle,suggests that "the proper location forthe type of art published in Leonardosnot a physical space at all, but in thisjournal" [23]. Stephen s'Soreff de-scribes art experiences and sites usingnew materials, concepts and technol-ogy because "itsimply takes too muchtime to travel to see firsthand all of theartbeing made today. Art criticism hasbecome for many the only way to ex-perience some artworks,and thus themagazine has become a de facto me-dium of art exhibition" [24]. s'Soreff'sreviews of future works that he calls'post-conceptual' describe visionarynew art including attempts to interestthe Army Corps of Engineers in

poetry, 'Teleprivateering', freezingsound in paint, and weather art.Jfirgen Claus, Fellow of the MITCenter for Advanced Visual Studies,suggests that the proper place for tech-nical art may be 'media centers' suchas the Cologne Mediapark. In hiswords, this "project is meant to bebased on a connection of research anddevelopment, for example in the fieldof applied computer science, tele-matics, education and further trainingin art and culture in the interface divi-sions. ..." He believes it is possible thatthis type of center might become thenew 'Electronic Bauhaus'. Claus alsobelieves that "advanced art has nochoice but to confront itself with con-temporary research. This would at allevents be much easier ifwe established

Fig. 7. TheInteractiveImage,Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago, illustrating thespecialized fabrication of environments. The video wall installation repeated forms alonga continuous plane. The space was designed to capture the viewer's curiosity throughchanging directions. (Copyright Electronic Visuali7ation Laboratory, University of Illinoisat Chicago)

art to the public. Their work relatesmore to performance art than to con-ventional art and is part of the move-

Prince,The Aesthetics of Exhibition: Recent American Computer Art Shows 87


9/9

appropriate conditions-in educa-tion, museum 'policy' and criticism-under which such discussions could becarried on in a well-informed, intel-ligent manner and with high demandsas regards the visual field" [25].Harold McWhinnie has expandedAndre Malraux's idea of the 'InstantMuseum', that is, that all artifactswillbe available photographically in a uni-versalmuseum, to include the conceptof the electronic museum. Mc-Whinnie's concept involves an elec-tronic bulletin board and an outerspace site: "Works of art would bestored in an information retrieval sys-tem and could be beamed back andforth to the museum spectator bothon earth, or under it in an art mu-seum, and on other space stations aswell" [26]. He has established threeelectronic 'museums' on floppy disks.Several large institutions have beenworking to develop systems that willoffer the visual information suggestedin McWhinnie's paper [27].The exploration will continue andexhibition sites will evolve as the artistand the viewers/participants redefinewhat is needed. Whatever is inventedin the future for an art exhibition willinclude art spaces. The evolution ofexperiential work demands more thanthat which currently can be given tothe viewer in pure electronic experi-ence. The tactile qualities of art arestill very rich. Michael Fehr, Directorof the Karl Ernst Osthaus Museum inHagen, West Germany, in his essay"The Art Museum as Critical Localefor the 'New Media'" points out thatin spite of the criticism aimed at mu-seums as institutions, they are the ap-propriate sites for new art forms. Be-

Fig. 8. Hsngingpanels from theDundalk GalleryexhibitionwhereStephens'Soreff's draw-ings of future artexperiences arethe')~~ visvisible.Photo:P. Prince)

cause museums are concerned withhistorical perspectives, the limitedspace is part of the timely process ofdelimiting art and therefore creating'memorable images', and, because ofthe museum's individuality, it is not"accessible to arbitrary intervention"and can therefore be a fundamentalsite [28].The important issue is the qualityand the changing nature of commu-nication between artist, artifact andthe viewer/participant. Artists whocreate inaccessible art or predictableart because the process of creation ismore important to them than the arti-fact or the experience must involveand communicate their ideas to theviewer. Conceptual artistswrote abouttheir art. This literary adjunct to con-temporary art is not totally satisfying.Perhaps in the future all viewers willbe so well educated that art theories,technical concepts and digital pro-cesses will be fully understood; untilthat time the artist using technologymust transform the viewer's reality aswell as create or transform new artforms. This is part of a historical con-tinuum dealing with process in art.Twentieth-century artists became in-of creation. The viewer/participant

spiritually, intellectually, or in someunique way yet to be discovered."The past is prologue."References1. Tom Wolfe, ThePainted Word New York:Far-rar,Straus and Giroux, 1975).

2. See Patric D. Prince, "COMPUTERAESTHET-ICS: New ArtExperience, or the Seduction of theMasses", ACM SIGGRAPH '86 Art Show Catalog(New York:ACM/SIGGRAPH, 1986) p. 41.3. Karl Ernest Meyer, The Art Museum: Power,Money,Ethics:A Twentieth-CenturyFundeportNewYork:Morrow, 1979) p. 128.4. Arthur Weever Melton, Problemsof Installationin MuseumsofArt(Washington, DC: Publicationsof the American Association of Museums, NewSeries, No. 14, 1935) p. 268.5. Jasia Reichardt, Cybernetics,Art and Ideas(Greenwich, CT: New YorkGraphic Society Ltd.,1971) p. 11.6. Event One (London: Computer Arts Society,1969).7. SIGGRAPH '82 Art Show Catalog (New York:ACM/SIGGRAPH, 1982); SIGGRAPH 83Exhibi-tionofComputerArtNew York:ACM/SIGGRAPH,1982); ComputerSupportDesign Exhibition (NewYork:ACM/SIGGRAPH, 1984); ACM/SIGGRAPH'85ArtShow New York:ACM/SIGGRAPH, 1985);ACM/SIGGRAPH86 Art ShowCatalog New York:ACM/SIGGRAPH, 1986); SIGGRAPH(NewYork:ACM/SIGGRAPH, 1987).8. Louis R. Cancel, "Introduction",in TheSecondEmergingExpressioniennial: TheArtist nd theCom-puter Bronx, NY:The Bronx Museum of the Arts,1987) p. 7.9. Cynthia Goodman, Digital Visions(New York:Abrams, 1987) pp. 22-34.10. Dan Sandin, interview with author, 19 April1988.11. Maxine Brown, Notes on The InteractiveImage(Chicago, IL: Electronic Visualization Labora-tory, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1987) p. 1.12. Brown [11] p. 10.13. Janet Anderson, interview with author, 22April 1988.14. Harold McWhinnie, "Dundalk Catalog"(1988) p. 2.15. Robert Mallary, interview with author, 14April 1988.16. Harold McWhinnie, "AGalleryfor the Art ofthe Next Century"(1987) p. 4.17. McWhinnie [16].18. Lora Hopman, interview with author, 15 Feb-ruary 1988;Tom Piche, interview with author, 21April 1988;Maxine Brown, interview with author,21 April 1988.19. Nicole Stenger, interview with author, 27April 1988.20. Jack Burnham, "Art and Technology: ThePanacea that Failed", in TheMythsof Information(Madison, WI:Coda, 1980) pp. 200-215.21. David Galloway, ArtwareKunst und Elektronik(Hannover, F.R.G.:Messe AG und Siemens AG,1988) p. 48.22. JuirgenClaus, The Digital Alphabet", in Art-wareKunst und Elektronik21] p. 49.23. David Carrier, Theoretical Perspectives onthe Arts, Sciences and Technology", Leonardo 0,No. 1, 83-86 (1987).24. Stephen s'Soreff, 'The Malleable Memory ofAvant Garde Art Review (AGAR):A Post-Concep-tualArtwork",Leonardo20,No. 4,387-390 (1987).25. Claus [22] p. 54.26. McWhinnie [16] p. 8.27. GrantProgramLos Angeles: TheJ. Paul Get-tyTrust, 1986) p. 10.28. Michael Fehr, 'The Art Museum as CriticalLocale for the 'New Media'", ArtwareKunst undElektronik21] p. 57.

88 Pnince,The Aesthetics of Exhibition: Recent American Computer Art Shows

Documents

Aesthetics of Exhibition